If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

There's a 5th Edition of D&D coming out ("D&D Next") and there are playtests and such. So discuss the playtests (within the bounds of the NDA), what you want to see, what you don't want to see, and other aspects of game design that may be relevant.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

It's unreasonable that an epic-level Rogue needs to roll against a monstrous DC to pick the lock on the tavern door, whereas a Heroic-tier Rogue has to roll a much lower DC to pick the same lock.

Some people took "scale you DCs on skill checks" to mean just that, not that the super-duper amazing locked door that epic rogues generally run across have harder to pick locks and that a Heroic rogue wouldn't have a chance of picking one.

I think this sounds like a problem with the "fluff" (which 4e certainly had its issues with), but mechanically it works as intended; players never fall behind and get useless at tasks (a la 3.5e), while numbers still go up. I think most 4e GMs (myself included) understand that a locked door at level 1 is not the same obstacle to a PC as a locked door at level 11; the difference becomes in how you handle a PC trying to "move" through that lock.

If there's not plausible reason for that lock to not be a run-of-the-mill generic lock, then the level 11 PC should more or less auto-succeed, assuming he/she has either Thievery training or a good dex score (and page 42 would confirm this; easy tasks are generally 5 + 1/2 level, so even if you're using level 11 "numbers" the player should still auto-succeed). And if you wanted to be even more purist, that "level 1" lock should have such a low DC (~11?) that even the clumsy fighter with his mere +4 to Thevery checks should have a decent chance of opening.

If instead the party encounters a lock installed by a group of giants (who are around level 11), then it shouldn't be a stretch to suggest that THIS lock is an appropriate challenge for the party rogue. maybe it's of giant design, or the locking mechanics are heavier/larger that common lockpicks are hard to use with it. Whatever.

Again, I'm not saying that the 4e DMG communicated this well (in fact, the DMG communicated a lot of things poorly), but as a system for improvising challenges for players, it works as intended (and I would argue, it works well).

Like the advice to not stat up every NPC, and to only give stats to NPCs that were supposed to engage in combat was taken to mean that NPCs don't matter unless the PCs are killing them.

I think this is another misinterpretation at best, and at worst, ignoring VERY good advice. Not every NPC needs a character sheet! Encouraging the DM to be constantly referencing some stats so he can accurately tell the PCs that THIS guy has a +12 to his Nature check only slows the game down. Instead, the DMG is (rightfully!) encouraging you to not make NPCs the focus of your game.

And it's not like you can't create NPCs with full stats (either PC generated, or monster generated); you absolutely can! But I would question the wisdom in doing so unless (as the advice says) you were planning on using them in some sort of combat. If the NPC is important enough, write out four or five traits/quirks about him/her, and guesstimate their skills/stats if the need should arise. As much as the DM advice given in 4e had problems, it also encouraged the DMs to work "smarter" (not "harder") to deliver their game. And despite its problems, page 42 is a brilliant tool that 3.5 sorely lacked, and that I hope 5e gets.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Also from the previous thread:

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

So anyway. First thoughts on the new playtest is that there are way too many knowledge skills, and they've still left out Perform and Repair. Boo. Channel Divinity is now just another healing spell and seems to be there only because they need some mechanic with that name. I like the new fighter mechanic, as well as grouping the feats in 'themes' to avoid choice paralysis. I don't like how a character gets only three skills in a fairly arbitrary grouping.

Regarding Knowledge skills, I think that having lots of them could be useful, but 5e in general suffers (at least thus far) from skills not doing anything specific and instead just being rolled when a somewhat-related situation comes up. If they were like 3e or SWSE skills, where it gave you an explicit list of functions and associated DCs, then you could fold in Knowledge Devotion- or Favored Enemy-style benefits to give you a concrete reason to have those sorts of skills. If you're just going to have skills that say you generally knowa bunch of stuff about X topic, that should really be a trait like "Historical Scholar: You know so much about history, it's like you're reading from the campaign setting sourcebooks" or "Tree-Hugger: you can identify plants and animals and their properties on sight because you just love nature that much" or the like (though obviously without the snark).

Regarding Channel Divinity, it's only a healing ability now, but its real use is as a hook for function calls later, similar to the way you could pick up extra Channel Divinity effects in 4e and to how Turn/Rebuke Undead powered [Divine] feats in 3e. I'd be surprised if alternate Channel Divinity options don't show up in the PHB right off the bat.

Originally Posted by Ashdate

I think this is another misinterpretation at best, and at worst, ignoring VERY good advice. Not every NPC needs a character sheet! Encouraging the DM to be constantly referencing some stats so he can accurately tell the PCs that THIS guy has a +12 to his Nature check only slows the game down. Instead, the DMG is (rightfully!) encouraging you to not make NPCs the focus of your game.

And it's not like you can't create NPCs with full stats (either PC generated, or monster generated); you absolutely can! But I would question the wisdom in doing so unless (as the advice says) you were planning on using them in some sort of combat. If the NPC is important enough, write out four or five traits/quirks about him/her, and guesstimate their skills/stats if the need should arise. As much as the DM advice given in 4e had problems, it also encouraged the DMs to work "smarter" (not "harder") to deliver their game. And despite its problems, page 42 is a brilliant tool that 3.5 sorely lacked, and that I hope 5e gets.

Rule #37 of DMing: The likelihood a PC will choose to go someplace is inversely proportional to the likelihood that you prepared for it, and the likelihood that a PC wants to attack a certain NPC is inversely proportional to the likelihood that you have combat stats for that NPC.

I don't want to start this thread off with a symmetric vs. asymmetric NPC rules debate, so suffice it to say that page 42 is vastly overrated, 3e had a big list of sample skill DCs as well, and having a range of acceptable values for stat X at level Y instead of one single value is not a bad thing at all.

Better to DM in Baator than play in CelestiaYou can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Regarding Channel Divinity, it's only a healing ability now, but its real use is as a hook for function calls later, similar to the way you could pick up extra Channel Divinity effects in 4e and to how Turn/Rebuke Undead powered [Divine] feats in 3e. I'd be surprised if alternate Channel Divinity options don't show up in the PHB right off the bat.

If this happens, then Clerics should just get channel divinity, and drop spellcasting completely.

I see no reason why Clerics need two separate sets of resources, when we're having to fight tooth and nail to get a single resource for half the classes.

If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost

Also from the previous thread:
Regarding Channel Divinity, it's only a healing ability now, but its real use is as a hook for function calls later, similar to the way you could pick up extra Channel Divinity effects in 4e and to how Turn/Rebuke Undead powered [Divine] feats in 3e. I'd be surprised if alternate Channel Divinity options don't show up in the PHB right off the bat.

Well, some options are already present, both the sun and war domain get some kind of alteration to their channel divinity ability, which will be a great way to help make different types of clerics seem different. I hope they don't make a lot of other abilities use channel divinity uses other than the domain however, for the reason Seerow stated.

In Next, they seem to have a design goal that, for spellcasters at least, they would rather make a spell that does something or put rules for some kind of effect in a spell rather than make a new general rule or class ability, for example, see the counterspell spell. I kind of like this, it helps with the idea that you get to choose your own complexity(by class, feat, and ability selection), it also makes there less generic rules to learn. A shining example of this is the Turn Undead spell. Clerics cans till turn undead, but it's not a whole new ability with it's own rules. If a cleric is going to get some new function or ability, it should be a spell(or a domain). If you can't fit the ability in one of those camps, you probably should make a new class.

"Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Regarding Knowledge skills, I think that having lots of them could be useful, but 5e in general suffers (at least thus far) from skills not doing anything specific and instead just being rolled when a somewhat-related situation comes up.

I think this is somewhat by design. The stated goal is that all checks are ability checks, and skills are really supposed to represent specializations in an area that provide a fixed bonus to that check. To that end, I think they're doing a poor job of conveying that idea, but it may also explain the abundance of knowledge skills, to reduce the idea that if you don't have the "swim" skill, you can't swim.

From the previous thread:

Originally Posted by navar100

Reverse metagaming. There are things the characters know that the players don't. Because the players don't know, they don't even know they should be asking if their characters know so they don't even attempt to make a case for knowing something.

In that case, your DM should be providing the information. It's no different than the DM describing the smell of the room, or the dampness of the air. The DM's job is to provide the information to the players that they need to know and should know to make informed choices. Besides, if the players don't know to ask for the knowledge, having a knowledge roll isn't going to help them at all, since they won't know to roll for it.

@Seerow,

I don't know if you saw it, but I would be very interested to hear your ideas on my last thoughts in the last thread RE: combat superiority dice.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

If this happens, then Clerics should just get channel divinity, and drop spellcasting completely.

I see no reason why Clerics need two separate sets of resources, when we're having to fight tooth and nail to get a single resource for half the classes.

Whether clerics need two sets of resources when spells are already plenty variable, and whether they'll end up getting two sets of resources because printing new Channel Divinity options is easy, are two entirely separate issues.

Originally Posted by TheOOB

Well, some options are already present, both the sun and war domain get some kind of alteration to their channel divinity ability, which will be a great way to help make different types of clerics seem different. I hope they don't make a lot of other abilities use channel divinity uses other than the domain however, for the reason Seerow stated.

I meant new options on top of those--my guess is that they're going to go the every-god-gets-a-new-Channel-Divinity-use route since that's simpler and more modular than a PrC here and a feat there and specialty over there to differentiate clerics of different faiths--whether we want them or not and whether they're a good idea or not. WotC needs to sell splatbooks, after all, and what better (and easier to write) module to release than a Complete Champion equivalent?

In Next, they seem to have a design goal that, for spellcasters at least, they would rather make a spell that does something or put rules for some kind of effect in a spell rather than make a new general rule or class ability, for example, see the counterspell spell. I kind of like this, it helps with the idea that you get to choose your own complexity(by class, feat, and ability selection), it also makes there less generic rules to learn. A shining example of this is the Turn Undead spell. Clerics cans till turn undead, but it's not a whole new ability with it's own rules. If a cleric is going to get some new function or ability, it should be a spell(or a domain). If you can't fit the ability in one of those camps, you probably should make a new class.

While folding things into spells is a good idea for controlling complexity, it's not a good idea for the modularity they've been touting and have yet to show us on a large scale. Separating out a resource means you have "hooks" you can built onto, and more resources means more things you can swap out. 2e had spells that affected other spells, while 3e had metamagic feats, and having a [metamagic] feat descriptor in 3e allowed for metamagic that behaved differently from spells (affecting spells during preparation, for instance), which may be something desirable. Similarly, having Turn Undead as a separate ability meant that there was a reserved ability slot for ACFs to swap out, [divine] feats to build on, and so forth.

Also, some abilities might not be best relegated to the spell list. There's a big thematic difference between having counterspell be a spell you can learn ("It is possible to counter enemy spells if you learn to do so") and having counterspelling be a basic magic option ("Casting the same spell as another caster does will interfere with and counter their casting"), and the same holds for "All clerics can turn undead [or even just turn a particular creature type" vs. "All clerics can potentially learn how to turn undead." Whether you want all members of a class to have it or not is debatable (I personally am in favor of making Turn Undead a spell like any other), but it is something to be considered before just throwing everything into the spell list.

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

I think this is somewhat by design. The stated goal is that all checks are ability checks, and skills are really supposed to represent specializations in an area that provide a fixed bonus to that check. To that end, I think they're doing a poor job of conveying that idea, but it may also explain the abundance of knowledge skills, to reduce the idea that if you don't have the "swim" skill, you can't swim.

As I said before, if there aren't going to be any guidelines as to what sorts of knowledge are common or rare, what tangible benefits knowing things has, and so forth, it would be better in my opinion to have Knowledge traits that just let you know stuff rather than having lots of skills cluttering up the design space. When it comes to swimming or seeing things or other straightforward tasks, you can reasonably judge how hard it is for a strong guy to swim in a storm, for an elf to see someone through fog in the dark, and so forth...but figuring out whether a character would know things about red dragons, for instance, is a lot more vague, based on how common they are in your game, how common they are where the character grew up, whether there are legends about them and how accurate those legends are, and so forth.

D&D has never really done knowledge NWPs/skills well, and 3e in particular had lots of wonky rules interactions or vagueness (farmers not being able to identify their cows, a dragon-slayer who grew up in a desert being able to identify fish but not dragons, determining what "a piece of useful information" about a creature means, etc.). Far better to say "If it relates to history, this guy knows it, with a few exceptions for plot-relevant mysteries when the DM would try to prevent you knowing it anyway" than to try to figure out how hard it would be to identify who the queen was in the neighboring kingdom 300 years ago.

Better to DM in Baator than play in CelestiaYou can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

I don't know if you saw it, but I would be very interested to hear your ideas on my last thoughts in the last thread RE: combat superiority dice.

I actually didn't see it, you went and edited in a response on me after I saw your initial post. Thanks for the head sup.

So really it seems that the issue is not that the CS thing sucks, or that you dislike it in general, it's that you feel the powers don't go far enough. Fair enough, and I can get behind that and in fact plan on having that be some of the feedback I send back as well. The big trick is balancing the system out. At will powers by definition should be weakish because you can use them repetitively, and making them too powerful runs a high chance of making them broken.

I agree with this to a degree, but right now the degree of separation is too far. We have guidelines of how long an adventuring day is supposed to last, and that adventuring day has a 5th level wizard casting dailies in more than half the rounds of combat for an average day.

As it is, even the options the Fighter gets at 5th level are weaker/less versatile than 1st level spells. I don't think wanting power levels to be on par with a spell a couple levels lower is too out of line. I'd like it if Cleave was more comparable to burning hands, or if a 5th level Fighter could grant cover to himself or an ally by expending dice.

What would you think of the following:

In addition to a few more status inducing powers, and fixing the stupidity that is glancing blow and a few of the others, leave most of the powers relatively low powered as they are.

I'd prefer low powered but more flexible. Like my suggested 'a single ability that lets you use the basic CS maneuvers for more potent effects', but yes.

In exchange, increase the number of dice available with a chart sort of like the wizard spell chart, but instead of spell levels, dice sizes (d4, d6, d8 etc), with a progression of maybe adding 1 die per level, and one size per 3-5 levels. Additionally, each ability has a "powered up" version of the ability that can be used, but such usage burns any CS dice you use until a long rest a la the vancian spells.

I like the idea of burning up CS dice for more potent effects. Personally I'd go with a slightly different implementation, but the general concept is one I agree with.

Personally, the way I'd do it is give Fighters 1 bonus CS die every odd level, at the same time that Wizards gain new spell levels. Higher level combat maneuvers take up more CS dice to use (like an ability you get at level 19-20 takes all 10 dice to use, an ability you get at level 5 takes 3 dice to use), and you gain one maneuver each level. And then some abilities that are more powerful burn a CS die (either for the encounter or daily, depending on designer intents or the power level of the abilities).

And while it would be nice to see more than one reaction, to a degree, it makes sense you can only have one both for game speed and also because a round is only 6 seconds. How much reaction do you plan on doing in 6 seconds?

Additionally, allow fighters to spend their CS dice to take additional reactions at the cost of one die per additional reaction (in addition to the die spent on the ability).

I'm addressing these together because it's a solution I can get behind. I suggested something similar on the wotc forums yesterday. The only real problem I see with this is that Fighters are the only one with a lot of reaction capability. The question is if that's seen as a good or bad thing.

Either way, as it is, I rolled up a defender Fighter, and the best option I found was to take the Hold the Line feat, and avoid anything else at all that went based off reactions because other options just weren't quite as good and you don't get quite enough options to be able to waste some.

If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by navar100

Reverse metagaming. There are things the characters know that the players don't. Because the players don't know, they don't even know they should be asking if their characters know so they don't even attempt to make a case for knowing something.

"You see strange glowing symbols on the wall."

"Okay, I roll Knowledge (Arcana) to see if I know anything about them."

The problem with this is the DM has probably already decided what they want you to know about the strange glowing symbols and what they don't. And if there's something that actually matters in it like a critical plot clue or something, they're not gonna leave that up to the roll of the dice.

"Whoops! Looks like you failed your Heraldic Lore check, so those guys you attacked were actually your allies. Now both the incumbents AND the rebels want you dead! Have fun!"

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Looking over the cleric, particularly war domain, I'm starting to get sort of a feeling of dread... like there's very little reason to play a fighter over it. We've already covered that combat superiority is lackluster, and the war cleric gets almost everything the fighter does... but it can cast spells too.

Let's see... same proficiencies as far as one-handed weapons goes. Doesn't get access to ranged weapons, but doesn't need them because they have spells. Radiant lance will do fine. Almost as tough, d8 dice instead of d10. Less accurate with attacks--at least until you cast a level 1 spell, Divine Favor, which can ONLY affect yourself (can't buff a fighter with it). Did I mention that Divine Favor lasts 6 rounds AND you can attack as part of the same action? Only thing holding them back is so few spells per day, really... I THINK the domain slot doesn't add an extra spell slot of each level per day, but I could be wrong. I think it just adds to the list of spells prepared.

Of course, channel divinity is essentially an extra spell per day, and it's really good in the hands of a war domain cleric--attack and heal as part of the same action. Hmm... isn't this a problem?

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese)

"You see strange glowing symbols on the wall."

"Okay, I roll Knowledge (Arcana) to see if I know anything about them."

The problem with this is the DM has probably already decided what they want you to know about the strange glowing symbols and what they don't. And if there's something that actually matters in it like a critical plot clue or something, they're not gonna leave that up to the roll of the dice.

"Whoops! Looks like you failed your Heraldic Lore check, so those guys you attacked were actually your allies. Now both the incumbents AND the rebels want you dead! Have fun!"

If there's a reason that you should know something, then you know it, no roll required. The knowledge skills, like all skills, are only supposed to come in when there's some sort of uncertainty. If you're a farmer, you probably know a lot about cows. If you grew up in the desert, you probably don't know anything about fish. This is exactly the kind of case where you would roll with advantage or disadvantage, at the DM's discretion. The DM also has the option of simply having you auto-succeed or auto-fail, if there's no possible way you would know or not know something.

There's no need for special rules in the knowledge skills to cover these situations, because they're covered in the rules for all skills. It explicitly says that if you're just walking down the street, you don't need to roll balance to not fall over. Similarly, if a clumsy (8 dex) wizard tries to walk across a thin, rotted rope strung between two ships being tossed in stormy seas, you don't roll for that, the DM just tells you how badly you fail. The same rule applies when your dull (8 int) rogue tries to recall the jewelry being worn by the Djinni involved in the ancient conspiracy between the Elemental Plane of Fire and the Elemental Plane of Slightly-Less-Fire that occurred three thousand years ago.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

There's no need for special rules in the knowledge skills to cover these situations, because they're covered in the rules for all skills. It explicitly says that if you're just walking down the street, you don't need to roll balance to not fall over.

This part is fine.

Similarly, if a clumsy (8 dex) wizard tries to walk across a thin, rotted rope strung between two ships being tossed in stormy seas, you don't roll for that, the DM just tells you how badly you fail. The same rule applies when your dull (8 int) rogue tries to recall the jewelry being worn by the Djinni involved in the ancient conspiracy between the Elemental Plane of Fire and the Elemental Plane of Slightly-Less-Fire that occurred three thousand years ago.

This part, however is not. What you should and should not be able to do should be based on what the modifiers add up to allowing you to do, not based solely on what the DM thinks is acceptable. If you want the Rogue with 18 dex and balance trained (+7 modifier) to be able to succeed reliably, that check DC needs to be 17 or lower. That means your Wizard with 8 dex and no training (-1) can succeed on that check 15% of the time. Telling him he can't even roll to attempt it is robbing the player of that chance without any mechanical reason for it.

If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Nu

Looking over the cleric, particularly war domain, I'm starting to get sort of a feeling of dread... like there's very little reason to play a fighter over it. We've already covered that combat superiority is lackluster, and the war cleric gets almost everything the fighter does... but it can cast spells too.

You're kidding, right?

Let's see... same proficiencies as far as one-handed weapons goes. Doesn't get access to ranged weapons, but doesn't need them because they have spells. Radiant lance will do fine.

I'm calling foul on this. Radiant Lance only ever does 1d8+4 damage, a ranged weapon deals equivalent base damage, but there are also special abilities and feats fighters can use on them, and cleric blasts are not the greatest.

Almost as tough, d8 dice instead of d10.

I feel parry is relevant, but with a clerics healing it mostly evens out(though a fighter has a higher hit die, parry, and can be healed)

Less accurate with attacks--at least until you cast a level 1 spell, Divine Favor, which can ONLY affect yourself (can't buff a fighter with it). Did I mention that Divine Favor lasts 6 rounds AND you can attack as part of the same action? Only thing holding them back is so few spells per day, really... I THINK the domain slot doesn't add an extra spell slot of each level per day, but I could be wrong. I think it just adds to the list of spells prepared.

I do feel Divine power is a little too strong, especially considering it's level 1(it either needs to drop to +1, or not allow an attack when you cast it.) Though do remember, a cleric can only cast 3 level 1 spells per day, and every divine favor is another spell they can't cast.

Of course, channel divinity is essentially an extra spell per day, and it's really good in the hands of a war domain cleric--attack and heal as part of the same action. Hmm... isn't this a problem?

It is an extra heal, and it is nice with the war domain, but it doesn't look like it gets used often enough to be anything more than a nice occasional ability.

On the other hand, at level 1, a fighter gets 1d6 extra damage on their attack, every round, and by level 5 thats 2d8 damage, every round, at no cost. As far as damage over time, I think the fighter is at the head of the pack. A wizard at level 5 can, using their best spell slot, do 5d6 damage to a target a couple of times(fireball, average damage 17.5), a fighter can easily deal 1d12+2d8+4 damage every attack(average 19.5 damage). In any fight lasting more than a few rounds, the fighters damage per round will be at the highest in their party(unless the rogue can secure advantage every round).

The fighter is quite powerful, and that's just deadly strike, they still have the option to use their expertise dice for other effects.

I will say that, at level 1, a cleric seems a little powerful(which is when channel divinity, crusaders strike, and divine favor are at their best), and the fighter a little weak(expertise dice get dramatically better at level 5), but I find all the classes quite viable and competitive with one another.

"Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

In that case, your DM should be providing the information. It's no different than the DM describing the smell of the room, or the dampness of the air. The DM's job is to provide the information to the players that they need to know and should know to make informed choices. Besides, if the players don't know to ask for the knowledge, having a knowledge roll isn't going to help them at all, since they won't know to roll for it.

Thanks for bringing the conversation here.

There is a point to this, such as Knowledge Arcana. Making the roll could be considered just an excuse for the DM to tell the player what some magical effect is. However, Knowledge checks serve two important functions:

1) It was common, at least in my experience over several DMs and years of playing, pre-3E for the DM to often say "You just don't know" whenever the player asks about something. DMs flat-out refused to give information until they see fit at their convenience. Knowledge checks became the game mechanic method for arbitrarily saying this PC knows something, tell him already DM. Years of post-3E play of DM telling players stuff because of rolls has diminished this problem. "You just don't know" has become an honest true legitimate "You don't know" instead of its former condescension with "just".

2) On the DM side, DMs often complain about PCs metagaming combat because they've read the Monster Manual. DMs had to fight back by changing monsters, such as trolls wearing rings of fire resistance or be a variant troll that's vulnerable to cold and electricity instead of fire and acid. Knowledge checks became the game mechanic method for arbitrarily saying this PC knows about this monster and the player is permitted to use his personal knowledge for the combat. Fail the check, the PC does not know and the DM is in his rights to metaphorically slap the hand of a player using metagame knowledge in the combat. The complaint of 3E warrior/spellcaster differences on being able to make this check is a fault against the mechanics of the concept, not the concept itself. Knowledge Devotion is an important feat to some. This metagame issue is not going away. Some method is needed.

As for players not knowing to ask, that is when the DM should either fiat tell the player his character knows this or ask for the Knowledge check if there's a chance the PC doesn't. That's DM-style issue, but I would like the 5E DMG to recommend it.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Warlock and Sorcerer being released as Vancian Alternatives tomorrow.

Quick take bets, over/under on both outclassing the Fighter and Rogue, and on whether or not they will have heavily ingrained fluff so you can't play a spellpoint character with wizard fluff, or whatever.

If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

However, Knowledge checks serve two important functions

Both of your functions essentially boil down to the same thing, using rules to bludgeon players or DMs into playing the game fairly and impartially. As we've discussed before, I don't feel it is appropriate to spend rules space and resources trying to force people to play "correctly." Either they will or they won't and the rules trying to force are just keeping the honest players honest.

Personally, the way I'd do it is give Fighters 1 bonus CS die every odd level, at the same time that Wizards gain new spell levels. Higher level combat maneuvers take up more CS dice to use (like an ability you get at level 19-20 takes all 10 dice to use, an ability you get at level 5 takes 3 dice to use), and you gain one maneuver each level. And then some abilities that are more powerful burn a CS die (either for the encounter or daily, depending on designer intents or the power level of the abilities).

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

If this happens, then Clerics should just get channel divinity, and drop spellcasting completely.

I see no reason why Clerics need two separate sets of resources, when we're having to fight tooth and nail to get a single resource for half the classes.

Actually I like the idea of taking away Channel Divinity and just giving the Cleric a special orison (minor magic or whatever they are calling it now) called Turn Undead/Rebuke Undead. This way it works just like a spell, you don't need more rules, and you don't have to worry about fanboys and fangirls complaining about the Cleric not feeling like a Cleric.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

So what would your progression look like? Something like this?

1: 1d6
2: 1d6
3: 2d6
4: 2d6
5: 3d8

Basically, yes.

When I did a write up a while ago, it started at a d4, so at level 5 you get d6, 10 is d8, 15 is d10, and you get d12s at 20. Yours would cap out at d12s by level 15, but either way works fine. The important thing is the # of dice, and the abilities that key off of them. Having dice scaling in number alongside spell levels makes it easier to balance the power of the abilities that key off them, and thus is better all around.

If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

With so many dice, I think you would either have to reduce the at will capabilities, or make any dice used over the first stay burned until a long rest. Otherwise at 5th level, your fighter is doing [w] + 3d8 per round at will damage. Even if you factor magic, it seems like that just moves the problem from linear fighter / quadratic wizard to quadratic wizard / cubic fighter. I guess arguably the fighter wont get AOE but I'm not sure that's enough of a damper. Even using your progression it's still 3d6 at will, half as much as the rogue sneak attack which is already a bit overpowered in my opinion.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Seerow

Warlock and Sorcerer being released as Vancian Alternatives tomorrow.

Quick take bets, over/under on both outclassing the Fighter and Rogue, and on whether or not they will have heavily ingrained fluff so you can't play a spellpoint character with wizard fluff, or whatever.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

With so many dice, I think you would either have to reduce the at will capabilities, or make any dice used over the first stay burned until a long rest. Otherwise at 5th level, your fighter is doing [w] + 3d8 per round at will damage. Even if you factor magic, it seems like that just moves the problem from linear fighter / quadratic wizard to quadratic wizard / cubic fighter. I guess arguably the fighter wont get AOE but I'm not sure that's enough of a damper. Even using your progression it's still 3d6 at will, half as much as the rogue sneak attack which is already a bit overpowered in my opinion.

Like you pointed out, the damage is still half what the rogue has. In a bounded accuracy system, where hit/AC don't scale much if at all, your scaling has to come from damage and special abilities. If +3d8 single target at level 5 is causing problems, then they've done something wrong with the scaling of the game.

Originally Posted by Ziegander

Wait, what? Where is this information coming from?

The GenCon Keynotes Address, they made an announcement at the end.

If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Seerow

This part, however is not. What you should and should not be able to do should be based on what the modifiers add up to allowing you to do, not based solely on what the DM thinks is acceptable. If you want the Rogue with 18 dex and balance trained (+7 modifier) to be able to succeed reliably, that check DC needs to be 17 or lower. That means your Wizard with 8 dex and no training (-1) can succeed on that check 15% of the time. Telling him he can't even roll to attempt it is robbing the player of that chance without any mechanical reason for it.

The situation I described should was meant to be something that even a very skilled, very dextrous rogue would have trouble with (+7 mod, minimum roll 10, automatic advantage), so a DC of at least 20, probably more along the lines of 25.

My point wasn't the specific situation, anyways, so if you don't think that fits, then just imagine an even more ludicrous situation that would call for a DC that high.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Seerow

Warlock and Sorcerer being released as Vancian Alternatives tomorrow.

Quick take bets, over/under on both outclassing the Fighter and Rogue, and on whether or not they will have heavily ingrained fluff so you can't play a spellpoint character with wizard fluff, or whatever.

My guesses: Warlock will be more 3e-like in terms of at-wills and flavor, and probably won't outclass anyone; Sorcerer will be more 4e-like in terms of blasting focus and flavor, and will probably blow both the fighter and rogue out of the water.

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

With so many dice, I think you would either have to reduce the at will capabilities, or make any dice used over the first stay burned until a long rest. Otherwise at 5th level, your fighter is doing [w] + 3d8 per round at will damage. Even if you factor magic, it seems like that just moves the problem from linear fighter / quadratic wizard to quadratic wizard / cubic fighter. I guess arguably the fighter wont get AOE but I'm not sure that's enough of a damper. Even using your progression it's still 3d6 at will, half as much as the rogue sneak attack which is already a bit overpowered in my opinion.

Honestly, [W]+3d8 damage doesn't sound too bad. The reliably high damage sounds very AD&D, in fact, where the average low-to-mid-level fighter could chew through ~1.5 even-HD monsters per round without breaking a sweat. I wouldn't mind a return to those levels of combat effectiveness for the fighter.

Better to DM in Baator than play in CelestiaYou can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost

My guesses: Warlock will be more 3e-like in terms of at-wills and flavor, and probably won't outclass anyone; Sorcerer will be more 4e-like in terms of blasting focus and flavor, and will probably blow both the fighter and rogue out of the water.

Warlock I believe they said would be the AEDU caster. Or at least Warlock and Sorcerer were mentioned as part of them talking about introducing AEDU and Spell Point classes.

If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

Both of your functions essentially boil down to the same thing, using rules to bludgeon players or DMs into playing the game fairly and impartially. As we've discussed before, I don't feel it is appropriate to spend rules space and resources trying to force people to play "correctly." Either they will or they won't and the rules trying to force are just keeping the honest players honest.

With rules having ink on paper, people will at least know someone is being arbitrarily obtuse and react accordingly instead of just blindingly accept it as the status quo because they don't know any better.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by TheOOB

You're kidding, right?

I am not. The fighter is extremely unimpressive for me right now.

Originally Posted by TheOOB

I'm calling foul on this. Radiant Lance only ever does 1d8+4 damage, a ranged weapon deals equivalent base damage, but there are also special abilities and feats fighters can use on them, and cleric blasts are not the greatest.

Oh, as far as raw damage, the cleric isn't gonna out-damage the fighter most likely. Not that it seems to matter that much with how low HP many of the creatures in the bestiary have. However, it can keep competitive, and the fighter attacks don't scale at any great rate. With an extra d6/d8 from expertise you're looking at maybe edging out the cleric in DPR by 2-4.

Originally Posted by TheOOB

I feel parry is relevant, but with a clerics healing it mostly evens out(though a fighter has a higher hit die, parry, and can be healed)

On the other hand, at level 1, a fighter gets 1d6 extra damage on their attack, every round, and by level 5 thats 2d8 damage, every round, at no cost. As far as damage over time, I think the fighter is at the head of the pack. A wizard at level 5 can, using their best spell slot, do 5d6 damage to a target a couple of times(fireball, average damage 17.5), a fighter can easily deal 1d12+2d8+4 damage every attack(average 19.5 damage). In any fight lasting more than a few rounds, the fighters damage per round will be at the highest in their party(unless the rogue can secure advantage every round).

You're exaggerating a bit here methinks. You say "at no cost," but if they're applying that extra damage from deadly strike, that means no parry for the round. Also, using a reaction on parry means you can't take advantage of, say, the guardian trait, which I have to feel will be a priority for defensive fighters. Of course, if you have two clerics in the party, one can take healer and one can take guardian... I almost feel like I'd rather have two clerics than a cleric and a fighter. You'd see a small decrease in damage but a large increase in staying power.

Originally Posted by TheOOB

I do feel Divine power is a little too strong, especially considering it's level 1(it either needs to drop to +1, or not allow an attack when you cast it.) Though do remember, a cleric can only cast 3 level 1 spells per day, and every divine favor is another spell they can't cast.

Yes, but that becomes less relevant as you increase in level and get more spells of other levels per day, while divine favor stays just as strong. It affects checks too, not just attacks.

Originally Posted by TheOOB

It is an extra heal, and it is nice with the war domain, but it doesn't look like it gets used often enough to be anything more than a nice occasional ability.

It is essentially an extra spell per day (at first). It's at least as good as healing word, and it scales, both in uses per day and in power. It's especially good with the Healer specialty, which I imagine many clerics will take.

Originally Posted by TheOOB

The fighter is quite powerful, and that's just deadly strike, they still have the option to use their expertise dice for other effects.

I'm not quite agreeing on "quite powerful," because to me, I think a rogue will deal more damage, a cleric can hold the front line just as well... where is the fighter's niche?

Originally Posted by TheOOB

I will say that, at level 1, a cleric seems a little powerful(which is when channel divinity, crusaders strike, and divine favor are at their best), and the fighter a little weak(expertise dice get dramatically better at level 5), but I find all the classes quite viable and competitive with one another.

I should note that by level 5 a cleric has many more spells per day, 2 channel divinity/day, and 2d8 healing with channel divinity (16 points if a healer), and I'd much rather be a cleric than a fighter at that point.

The way I see it is, once you reach level 3 as a cleric, make healing potions that will always be maximized, and keep some healing spells prepared (probably healing word for the level 1 slot), but try to devote your spells to offense unless you absolutely must heal. Of course, channel divinity can be used to heal 2/day starting at level 4 and that will be a big help.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Like you pointed out, the damage is still half what the rogue has. In a bounded accuracy system, where hit/AC don't scale much if at all, your scaling has to come from damage and special abilities. If +3d8 single target at level 5 is causing problems, then they've done something wrong with the scaling of the game.

I also said I already thought the rogue sneak attack damage aw overpowered for how easy it is to get. And we're talking at will here. Let's look at our pregen dwarf. With a +6 to hit and average die rolls, our dwarf will reliably hit anything with a 16 or lower AC and deal 20 damage per round. Let's look at our bestiary, the level 5 fighter could pretty much solo anything in the bestiary at will and without breaking a sweat. I'm all for making the fighter the best at fighting, but even the toughest creature in there goes down in 3-4 rounds just from the fighter. To me that seems a bit much, though I do think it's reasonable as an infrequent thing. That's why I suggest something like burning every die spent past the first on a given maneuver, although that might require even more dice. Hmmm, I guess I'll have to run these through some play testing, see of something jumps out.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

I also said I already thought the rogue sneak attack damage aw overpowered for how easy it is to get. And we're talking at will here. Let's look at our pregen dwarf. With a +6 to hit and average die rolls, our dwarf will reliably hit anything with a 16 or lower AC and deal 20 damage per round. Let's look at our bestiary, the level 5 fighter could pretty much solo anything in the bestiary at will and without breaking a sweat. I'm all for making the fighter the best at fighting, but even the toughest creature in there goes down in 3-4 rounds just from the fighter. To me that seems a bit much, though I do think it's reasonable as an infrequent thing. That's why I suggest something like burning every die spent past the first on a given maneuver, although that might require even more dice. Hmmm, I guess I'll have to run these through some play testing, see of something jumps out.

I could see maybe burning one die on any maneuver with over 1 die, but all dice over 1 is outrageous, especially if you go with my suggestion that higher level maneuvers require the max number of dice you have at the level you get it. (so a 5th level maneuver takes 3 dice, a 20th level one takes 10. Making that 20th level maneuver burn 9 dice is completely unnacceptable unless those maneuvers are far beyond the power of spells, which I doubt I will ever see happen.)

Anyway, I'm going to point you back to "if that level of damage is a problem for the system, they've messed up their scaling", because hit points and damage should be scaling very quickly to make up for the lack of hit/AC bonuses. Honestly I find it a big compromise already to be stuck with flat AC/hit bonuses and have damage/hp still only progressing linearly. Damage progressing only at every other level is an even further compromise but one I can accept because it makes balance of the actual abilities easier. The current rate of scaling, 1 die per 5 levels? Absolutely atrocious. The 3.5 Fighter scales better than that.

As for the fighter being able to take on any monster 1v1 within 4 rounds, the expectation of encounters in 5e seems to be many monsters. The expectation also seems to be a tendency towards fast combats, 2-3 rounds for the most part. A character taking out a single on level enemy is what the game expects. If that is not the intention, the designers got their scaling wrong when they dropped hit points down, and need to bring HP back up.

If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Slightly off topic, earlier today I decided to roll up a Fighter using the current rules, but with picking/choosing skills, feats, and abilities, rather than taking the preselected packages. Just thought I'd share

Spoiler

Show

The character:

Spoiler

Show

Used Invisible Castle to roll a set of stats, got this: invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/3656456/

Background trained skills: Stealth (+8), Open Locks (+8), Spot (+5)
Level up trained skills: Bluff (+4), Sleight of Hand (+8). If trained skills can't be used to gain new skills and can only improve skills (this seems unclear in the packet), instead Stealth goes up to +10.
Trait: Undecided. Probably Hearth and Home to keep things simple, or Contact, since I'm practically a spy who traded bluff for open locks.

The character plays as a more defensive oriented rogue. In melee combat, he will take advantage of the ability to Dodge, using Jab to still attempt to make a hit. He will use Shift and Jab in combination with this ability to either interpose himself between an enemy and his allies, or to push the enemy away from his allies, if they are already there. He then uses his hold the line feat to stop any enemy trying to move through his reach to the enemy. Any enemy attempting to attack the character is running up against an AC of 21, and is likely to be wasting their turn. The character has good Con, Dex, and Wisdom, the three abilities that all spells currently in the game target, making him harder than usual to take out via alternative means as well.

In Ranged Combat the character lacks options, but he can put out a decent amount of hurt (with deadly strike averages about 18 damage per shot) with the highest hit bonus in the game from a distance that will take most creatures at least 2 rounds to cover.

Out of combat, the character fills the general role of the rogue. He makes a solid scout and guard, with exceptional stealth and above average spot, and can get through locked doors with ease. He can't deal with traps effectively, however ideally that's a skill the wizard would pick up, assuming there's no rogue in the group. The character can also detect magic and use mage hand at will, which are handy utilities to have, and may be something the Wizard passes up in favor of at will attack spells. If I wasn't grabbing that, I'd probably go with either Rapid Shot (for ranged minion clearing) or Ambusher (to complement his stealth) instead. Or maybe skill training if the level up skill increases can't be spent to get new skills

So things I noted while making this character:
-I originally wanted to go with a rapier, but when using jab there's really no way to justify not using the whip. Even without using jab, reach in exchange for 1 point of average damage is a pretty big trade off, especially when using something like hold the line.
-Cherry picking abilities gave a little more flexibility because I wasn't saddled with any of the really bad options (in the standard packages, each option has at least one bad pick I'd not want to take willingly). As it was I felt like I got everything I really wanted, and it came down to whether I wanted Push or Prone, though being able to have snap shot as well would have been nice.
-Specialties in general were really underwhelming. Very few things really jumped out at me as must have. Limited reactions meant I only wanted one feat from the guardian theme, and there really weren't any options for a normal melee combatant, to take. So the extra feat got put towards turning the fighter into a caster because it seemed the most useful utility of the bunch.
-At level 2, the only thing this character (and any fighter) gets is +1 hit die, and 1 trained skill. That's pretty boring, especially if the level up skill training only lets you get a +1 to a background skill. Level 4 is similarly pretty boring, except you also get a +1 to hit.
-A lot of the time, as a dex based Figher, the character was being defined as "Like a rogue but....". I could see the character coexisting with a rogue nicely (Out of combat, the rogue picks up more of the int/cha based skills, along with stealth, and aims for a 14 in those. In combat the rogue is much more offensive than this fighter pumping out much more damage while the Fighter does his best to keep anything from touching the rogue. Especially by the time the Fighter has Push and the Rogue has hit-and-run), but I think that to some degree we just associate dex with rogue and str with fighter, despite IMO dex making for the more effective Fighter (unless you only want pure damage in which case str is marginally better)
-The stat array I rolled seemed really good, but when I added it up it was just a 29 point buy. I could have gone with the 25 point buy that the array is generated from and just dropped int/cha a bit more, and gotten the same thing. This little exercise did not alleviate any concerns of humans being too strong.

Last edited by Seerow; 2012-08-16 at 09:28 PM.

If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?